DOCSLIB.ORG

Transit Labor Relations Guide

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

MTI Report 01-02 Norman Y. Mineta International Institute for Surface Transportation Policy Studies Created by Congress in 1991 TRANSIT LABOR RELATIONS GUIDE Mineta Transportation Institute San Jos é State University San Jose, CA 95192-0219 Mineta Transportation Institute Report 01-02 TRANSIT LABOR RELATIONS GUIDE September 2001 Herbert H. Oestreich (Principal Investigator) George L. Whaley (Research Associate) a publication of the Mineta Transportation Institute Created by Congress in 1991 Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No. FHWA/CA/OR-9906 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date Transit Labor Relations Guide September 2001 6. Performing Organization Code 7. Authors 8. Performing Organization Report No. Herbert H. Oestreich (PI), George Whaley (RA) 01-02 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. Mineta Transportation Institute College of Business, San José State University 11. Contract or Grant No. San Jose, CA 95129-0219 65W136 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered California Department of Transportation U.S. Department of Transportation Final Report Sacramento, CA 95819 Research and Special Programs Administration 14. Sponsoring Agency Code 400 7th Street, SW Washington, DC 20590-0001 15. Supplementary Notes This research project was financially sponsored by the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Research and Special Programs Administration and by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 16. Abstract Transit organizations, both public and private, are under great internal and external pressures today to improve their organizational effectiveness. Studies have shown that the collective bargaining relationship between union and management, particularly the collective bargaining agreement, has a direct, measurable effect on organiza- tional effectiveness. Both transit manageent and transit unions have begun to recognize that it is in their mutual inaterest to improve organizational effectiveness by turning otward a more cooperative collective bargaining relationship. In particular, they have experimented with a negotiating style called “interest-based bargaining” and with a problem solving approach through joint labor-management committees. There is a great deal of misinformation on both subjects, and it is the purpose of this paper to dispel the myths about interest-basedf bargaining and give examples of wh en this approach has worked. A historical background has been provided about5 transit unions as well as stransit strikes, and what should have been learned from those mistakes. 17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement Transit, Union, Labor, Management, Bargaining, Negotiation No restrictions. This document is available to the public through the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161 19. Security Classif. (of this report) 20. Security Classif. (of this page) 21. No. of Pages 22. Price Unclassified Unclassified 136 $15.00 Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Copyright © 2001 by MTI All rights reserved Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 2001094839 To order this publication, please contact the following: The Mineta Transportation Institute College of Business—BT550 San José State University San Jose, CA 95192-0219 Tel (408) 924-7560 Fax (408) 924-7565 Email: [email protected] http://transweb.sjsu.edu ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Our foremost appreciation goes to Trixie Johnson, Research Director of the Mineta Transportation Institute at San José State University. We are grateful to her not only for her guidance and great moral support throughout this project, but also for her substantive contributions. She has freely shared with us her wealth of experience in transit and government organizations. Credit is also due to Rod Diridon, Executive Director of the Mineta Transportation Institute at San José State University, for his support and guidance in the project. Among the members of the administrative staff of the Institute who have been very helpful in getting the research report into acceptable format are Miriam Ayllon, Sonya Cardenas, and Jeanne Dittman. We wish to extend our special thanks also to the many transit labor relations practitioners and scholars who shared their knowledge and insights with us. We can mention only a few here: Darold Barnum, author of the landmark publication From Private to Public: Labor Relations in Urban Mass Transit; Jerry Benson, Human Resource Director, Utah Transit Authority; John Fiscella, consultant with the DC Labor-Management Partnership Council, formerly an IBN facilitator with the Office of the American Workplace, U.S. Department of Labor; Richard Giacolone, FMCS Institute Director, Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service; Richard C. Kearney, Chair, Department of Political Science, East Carolina University, and author of the text Labor Relations in the Public Sector; Howard Lewis, formerly Director of Labor Relations, Bay Area Rapid Transit System; Kent McDaniel, Institute for Urban Transportation, Indiana University; Bill McLean, President & Business Agent, Amalgamated Transit Union Local 265; Robert Molofsky, General Counsel, Amalgamated Transit Union; Lynne Morel, Shop Steward, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 1245; James Olivetti, Director, Information Center, American Public Transportation Association (formerly American Public Transit Association); Terry Palmer, Chairperson, Non-Contract Employees Committee, Sacramento Regional Transit Authority; Stephanie Robinson, formerly Senior Program Officer, Transit Cooperative Research Program, Transportation Research Board; Michal Settles, Director of Human Resources, Bay Area Rapid Transit System; Frank Shipman, Vice President of Human Resources and Employee Relations, San Diego Transit Corporation. Finally, we feel indebted to the many participants at conferences and training workshops who have shared their insights and experiences with us. Any shortcomings in this report remain our responsibility alone Transit Labor Relations Guide i TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY........................................................................................... ........... 1 THE PROBLEM...................................................................................................... ........... 1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THE STUDY............................................................ ........... 1 TWO COLLECTIVE BARGAINING SYSTEMS.................................................. ........... 2 1. A BRIEF HISTORY OF TRANSIT LABOR RELATIONS............................. ........... 5 THE EARLIEST FORM OF TRANSIT: FERRY BOATS..................................... ........... 5 THE HORSE-DRAWN TRANSIT VEHICLE ERA............................................... ........... 6 THE NEW TECHNOLOGY.................................................................................... ........... 8 THE GREAT GREYHOUND STRIKES................................................................ ........... 9 LESSONS LEARNED............................................................................................. ......... 13 2. THE ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL ENVIRONMENT OF TRANSIT RELATIONS................................................................................. ......... 17 SOME ECONOMIC REALITIES........................................................................... ......... 17 THE RATIONAL COMMUTER............................................................................. ......... 18 NEGOTIATED INCENTIVES................................................................................ ......... 19 PART-TIME LABOR.............................................................................................. ......... 20 PRIVATIZATION................................................................................................... ......... 22 THE UNIONS.......................................................................................................... ......... 23 THE STRIKE ENVIRONMENT............................................................................. ......... 26 THE POLITICAL ROLE OF THE TRANSIT STRIKE......................................... ......... 29 THE POLITICAL COMPLEXITIES OF THE PUBLIC SECTOR........................ ......... 30 LEADERSHIP STYLE............................................................................................ ......... 32 THE NEW LABOR ECONOMICS......................................................................... ......... 33 3. THE LEGAL ENVIRONMENT OF TRANSIT LABOR RELATIONS......... ......... 37 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................... ......... 37 PRIVATE SECTOR TRANSIT EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES.................... ......... 37 PUBLIC SECTOR TRANSIT EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES...................... ......... 42 THE MEMPHIS FORMULA.................................................................................. ......... 43 EARLY ENABLING STATE LEGISLATION...................................................... ......... 45 ENABLING STATE LEGISLATION SINCE 1964............................................... ......... 47 STATES WHICH STILL PROHIBIT PUBLIC SECTOR COLLECTIVE BARGAINING............................................................................... ......... 51 DRUG AND ALCOHOL TESTING....................................................................... ......... 52 SUMMARY............................................................................................................
Recommended publications
  • Governing Body 323Rd Session, Geneva, 12–27 March 2015 GB.323/INS/5/Appendix III

    Governing Body 323Rd Session, Geneva, 12–27 March 2015 GB.323/INS/5/Appendix III

    INTERNATIONAL LABOUR OFFICE Governing Body 323rd Session, Geneva, 12–27 March 2015 GB.323/INS/5/Appendix III Institutional Section INS Date: 13 March 2015 Original: English FIFTH ITEM ON THE AGENDA The Standards Initiative – Appendix III Background document for the Tripartite Meeting on the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), in relation to the right to strike and the modalities and practices of strike action at national level (revised) (Geneva, 23–25 February 2015) Contents Page Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 1 Decision on the fifth item on the agenda: The standards initiative: Follow-up to the 2012 ILC Committee on the Application of Standards .................. 1 Part I. ILO Convention No. 87 and the right to strike ..................................................................... 3 I. Introduction ................................................................................................................ 3 II. The Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87) ......................................................................... 3 II.1. Negotiating history prior to the adoption of the Convention ........................... 3 II.2. Related developments after the adoption of the Convention ........................... 5 III. Supervision of obligations arising under or relating to Conventions ........................
  • National Master Ups Freight Agreement

    National Master Ups Freight Agreement

    NATIONAL MASTER UPS FREIGHT AGREEMENT For the Period: August 1, 2013 2018 through July 31, 2018 2023 covering: The parties reserve the right to correct inadvertent errors and omissions. Where no reference is made to a specific Article or Section thereof, such Article and Section are to continue as in the current Master Agreement, as applied and interpreted during the life of such Agreement. Additions and new language are bold and underlined. Language from the prior Master Agreement that is being deleted is struck through. UPS Freight, herein referred to as the “Employer” and/or employees who are not members of the Local Union and all “Company”, and the TEAMSTERS NATIONAL UPS FREIGHT employees who are hired hereafter, shall become and remain NEGOTIATING COMMITTEE, hereinafter referred to as members in good standing of the Local Union as a condition TNUPSFNC, representing Local Unions affiliated with the of employment on and after the thirty-first (31st) day following International Brotherhood of Teamsters. the beginning of their employment, or on and after the thirty- first (31st) day following the effective date of this subsection, or ARTICLE 1 the date of this Agreement, whichever is the later. An employee PARTIES TO THE AGREEMENT who has failed to acquire, or thereafter maintain, membership in the Union, as herein provided, shall be terminated seventy-two Section 3. Transfer of Company Title or Interest (72) hours after the Employer has received written notice from In the event the Company is sold or any part of its operations covered an authorized representative of the Local Union, certifying that by this Agreement is transferred, the Company shall give notice to the membership has been, and is continuing to be offered to such Local UnionTNUPSFNC to the extent required by applicable law.
  • Employee Free Choice Act—Union Certification

    Employee Free Choice Act—Union Certification

    S. HRG. 108–596 EMPLOYEE FREE CHOICE ACT—UNION CERTIFICATION HEARING BEFORE A SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION SPECIAL HEARING JULY 16, 2004—HARRISBURG, PA Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations ( Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 95–533 PDF WASHINGTON : 2004 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001 COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS TED STEVENS, Alaska, Chairman THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont MITCH MCCONNELL, Kentucky TOM HARKIN, Iowa CONRAD BURNS, Montana BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama HARRY REID, Nevada JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire HERB KOHL, Wisconsin ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah PATTY MURRAY, Washington BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota LARRY CRAIG, Idaho DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois MIKE DEWINE, Ohio TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana JAMES W. MORHARD, Staff Director LISA SUTHERLAND, Deputy Staff Director TERRENCE E. SAUVAIN, Minority Staff Director SUBCOMMITTEE ON DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi TOM HARKIN, Iowa JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire ERNEST F.
  • Featherbedding on the Railroads: by Law and by Agreement·

    Featherbedding on the Railroads: by Law and by Agreement·

    Featherbedding on the Railroads: by Law and by Agreement· J.A. LlPOWSKI* I. INTRODUCTION The concept of "featherbedding"1 or make-work rules involves the conflict between two ideals: efficiency, usually necessary for the profit­ able operation of an enterprise, and job security, which is the desire of every worker and the hope of any union interested in maintaining its membership rolls. These conflicting ideals must be reconciled at some point. In the railroad industry, where the controversy over featherbedding has been most pronounced and the consequences most strongly felt, the carriers argue that the increased labor cost resulting from this practice is crippling the industry. In 1963 it was estimated that featherbedding . • BA, Lindenwood College; J.D., University of Tulsa College of Law, 1976. 1. Featherbedding has been defined as "[T]hose work rules which require the employ­ ment of more workers than needed for the job. In addition, when technological advances eliminate positions, unions often insist that the workers be retained and receive their regular pay tor doing nothing" A PARADIS, THE LABOR REFERENCE BOOK 71 (1972). The United States Departm'ent of Labor says that featherbedding is: a derogatory term applied to a practice, working rule, or agreement provision which limits output or requires employment of excess workers and thereby creates or preserves soft or unnecessary jobs; or to a charge or fee levied by a union upon a company for services which are not performed or not to be performed. U.S. DEPT. OF LABOR, BULL. No. 1438. GLOSSARY OF CURRENT INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS AND WAGE TERMS 31 (1965).
  • Why Organize and Affiliate Others?

    Why Organize and Affiliate Others?

    Affiliate Organizing Committee Handbook Updated March, 2016 WHY ORGANIZE AND AFFILIATE OTHERS? ........................................................1 - 2 CSO CODE OF CONDUCT ...................................................................................3 INTRODUCTION TO CSO/NSO ...........................................................................4 BENEFITS OF CSO MEMBERSHIP AND LOCAL AFFILIATION .................................5 HOW MEMBERS PARTICIPATE IN CSO/NSO ........................................................6 - 7 ELIGIBILITY, DUES AND STANDARDS FOR AFFILIATION ....................................8 - 9 REPRESENTING A BRAND-NEW BARGAINING UNIT .......................................... 10 - 15 BARGAINING CSO AGREEMENTS .......................................................................16 ONCE THE CONTRACT HAS BEEN BARGAINED ...................................................17 APPENDIX A – AUTHORIZATION FORM ..............................................................19 APPENDIX B – RECOGNITION REQUEST ............................................................20 APPENDIX C – RECOGNITION AGREEMENT ........................................................21 APPENDIX D – NLRB RECOGNITION PETITION ...................................................22 APPENDIX E – CBC GOALS AND SETTLEMENT STANDARDS ........................23 - 31 CSO MEMBERSHIP FORM ..............................................................................33 1 CSO Affiliate Organizing Handbook Welcome to the California Staff Organization (CSO).
  • GLOSSARY of COLLECTIVE BARGAINING TERMS and SELECTED LABOR TOPICS

    GLOSSARY of COLLECTIVE BARGAINING TERMS and SELECTED LABOR TOPICS

    GLOSSARY of COLLECTIVE BARGAINING TERMS and SELECTED LABOR TOPICS ABEYANCE – The placement of a pending grievance (or motion) by mutual agreement of the parties, outside the specified time limits until a later date when it may be taken up and processed. ACTION - Direct action occurs when any group of union members engage in an action, such as a protest, that directly exposes a problem, or a possible solution to a contractual and/or societal issue. Union members engage in such actions to spotlight an injustice with the goal of correcting it. It further mobilizes the membership to work in concerted fashion for their own good and improvement. ACCRETION – The addition or consolidation of new employees or a new bargaining unit to or with an existing bargaining unit. ACROSS THE BOARD INCREASE - A general wage increase that covers all the members of a bargaining unit, regardless of classification, grade or step level. Such an increase may be in terms of a percentage or dollar amount. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE – An agent of the National Labor Relations Board or the public sector commission appointed to docket, hear, settle and decide unfair labor practice cases nationwide or statewide in the public sector. They also conduct and preside over formal hearings/trials on an unfair labor practice complaint or a representation case. AFL-CIO - The American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations is the national federation of unions in the United States. It is made up of fifty-six national and international unions, together representing more than 12 million active and retired workers.
  • The Legal and Political Implications of Placing Paid Union Organizers in the Employer's Workplace Victor J

    The Legal and Political Implications of Placing Paid Union Organizers in the Employer's Workplace Victor J

    Hofstra Labor and Employment Law Journal Volume 16 | Issue 1 Article 1 1998 Salting the Mines: the Legal and Political Implications of Placing Paid Union Organizers in the Employer's Workplace Victor J. Van Bourg Ellyn Moscowitz Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/hlelj Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Van Bourg, Victor J. and Moscowitz, Ellyn (1998) "Salting the Mines: the Legal and Political Implications of Placing Paid Union Organizers in the Employer's Workplace," Hofstra Labor and Employment Law Journal: Vol. 16: Iss. 1, Article 1. Available at: http://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/hlelj/vol16/iss1/1 This document is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarly Commons at Hofstra Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Hofstra Labor and Employment Law Journal by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Commons at Hofstra Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Van Bourg and Moscowitz: Salting the Mines: the Legal and Political Implications of Placin HOFSTRA LABOR & EMPLOYMENT LAW JOURNAL Volume 16, No. 1 Fall 1998 ARTICLES SALTING THE MINES: THE LEGAL AND POLITICAL IMPLICATIONS OF PLACING PAID UNION ORGANIZERS IN THE EMPLOYER'S WORKPLACE* Victor J. Van Bourg** Ellyn Moscowitz*** Mr. Chairman .... Thank you for Mr. Chairman, I rise to strongly the opportunity to speak today. I oppose H.R. 3246, mistakenly am here to discuss the serious called the Fairness for Small Busi- * This article was made possible, in part, by a summer research grant from Chapman Uni- versity School of Law, while Ellyn Moscowitz was an Associate Professor of Law there.
  • Total of 10 Pages Only May Be Xeroxed

    Total of 10 Pages Only May Be Xeroxed

    CENTRE FOR NEWFOUNDLAND STUDIES TOTAL OF 10 PAGES ONLY MAY BE XEROXED (WithOUI Author's Pe.f11'\ illi0fl) The Evolution of Fish Trades Associations and Their Changing Role in the Collective Bargaining Process in Newfoundland and Labrador By Paul G. Grant Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Marine Studies Memorial University ofNewfoundland St. John's, Newfoundland June 30, 2003 Library and Bibliotheque et 1+1 Archives Canada Archives Canada Published Heritage Direction du Branch Patrimoine de !'edition 395 Wellington Street 395, rue Wellington Ottawa ON K1A ON4 Ottawa ON K1A ON4 Canada Canada Your file Votre reference ISBN: 0-494-09923-2 Our file Notre reference ISBN: 0-494-09923-2 NOTICE: AVIS: The author has granted a non­ L'auteur a accorde une licence non exclusive exclusive license allowing Library permettant a Ia Bibliotheque et Archives and Archives Canada to reproduce, Canada de reproduire, publier, archiver, publish, archive, preserve, conserve, sauvegarder, conserver, transmettre au public communicate to the public by par telecommunication ou par I' Internet, preter, telecommunication or on the Internet, distribuer et vendre des theses partout dans loan, distribute and sell theses le monde, a des fins commerciales ou autres, worldwide, for commercial or non­ sur support microforme, papier, electronique commercial purposes, in microform, et/ou autres formats. paper, electronic and/or any other formats. The author retains copyright L'auteur conserve Ia propriete du droit d'auteur ownership and moral rights in et des droits meraux qui protege cette these. this thesis. Neither the thesis Ni Ia these ni des extraits substantiels de nor substantial extracts from it celle-ci ne doivent etre imprimes ou autrement may be printed or otherwise reproduits sans son autorisation.
  • BARGAINING the EIGHTIES a and A

    BARGAINING the EIGHTIES a and A

    CAMPus· BARGAINING IN THE EIGHTIES A Retrospective and a Prospective Look Proceedings Eighth Annual Conference April 1980 AARON LEVENSTEIN, Editor JOEL M. DOUGLAS, Director ~ National Center for the Study of • Collective Bargaining in Higher Education 0 ~ Baruch College- CUNY CAMPUS BARGAINING IN THE EIGHTIES A Retrospective and a Prospective Look Proceedings Eighth Annual Conference April 1980 AARON LEVENSTEIN, Editor JOEL M. DOUGLAS, Director ~ National Center for the Study of • 0 • Collective Bargaining in Higher Education ~~,,,, Baruch College-CUNY TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1. Joel M. Douglas - Introduction ............................ 5 2. Joel Segall - Welcoming Address . .. 11 3. T. Edward Hollander and Lawrence R. Marcus - The Economic Environment in the Eighties ..................................... 12 4. Gerie Bledsoe - The Economic Environment in the Eighties - The Necessity for Joint Action ....................................... 1 9 5. Aaron Levenstein - The Legal Environment: The Yeshiva Decision ................................. 24 6. Joseph M. Bress - The Legal Environment in the Eighties - The Agency Shop . ..... 39 7. John Silber - Collective Bargaining m Higher Education: Expectations and Realities - A University President's Viewpoint ........................................ 49 8. Margaret K. Chandler and Daniel Julius - Rights Issues: A Scramble for Power? ........................................ 58 9. Jerome Medalie - Faculty Relations in Non-unionized Institutions ........................... 65 I 0. Ildiko Knott - Union
  • Rushing Union Elections: Protecting the Interests of Big Labor at the Expense of Workers’ Free Choice

    Rushing Union Elections: Protecting the Interests of Big Labor at the Expense of Workers’ Free Choice

    RUSHING UNION ELECTIONS: PROTECTING THE INTERESTS OF BIG LABOR AT THE EXPENSE OF WORKERS’ FREE CHOICE HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, JULY 7, 2011 Serial No. 112–31 Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and the Workforce ( Available via the World Wide Web: www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/committee.action?chamber=house&committee=education or Committee address: http://edworkforce.house.gov U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 67–240 PDF WASHINGTON : 2011 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001 COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE JOHN KLINE, Minnesota, Chairman Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin George Miller, California, Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon, California Senior Democratic Member Judy Biggert, Illinois Dale E. Kildee, Michigan Todd Russell Platts, Pennsylvania Donald M. Payne, New Jersey Joe Wilson, South Carolina Robert E. Andrews, New Jersey Virginia Foxx, North Carolina Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott, Virginia Bob Goodlatte, Virginia Lynn C. Woolsey, California Duncan Hunter, California Rube´n Hinojosa, Texas David P. Roe, Tennessee Carolyn McCarthy, New York Glenn Thompson, Pennsylvania John F. Tierney, Massachusetts Tim Walberg, Michigan Dennis J. Kucinich, Ohio Scott DesJarlais, Tennessee David Wu, Oregon Richard L. Hanna, New York Rush D. Holt, New Jersey Todd Rokita, Indiana Susan A. Davis, California Larry Bucshon, Indiana Rau´ l M. Grijalva, Arizona Trey Gowdy, South Carolina Timothy H.
  • Collective Bargaining Agreement

    Collective Bargaining Agreement

    COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT BETWEEN KITSAP COUNTY AND OPERATING ENGINEERS, LOCAL 302 TEAMSTERS, LOCAL 589 IAM & AW, DISTRICT 160, LOCAL 282 LABORERS UNION, LOCAL 252 KC-281-19 January 1, 2019 through December 31, 2020 COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE ARTICLE 1 – RECOGNITION ................................................................................... 1 ARTICLE 2 – UNION SECURITY .............................................................................. 1 ARTICLE 3 – UNION/EMPLOYER RELATIONS ...................................................... 2 ARTICLE 4 – DEFINITIONS ...................................................................................... 3 ARTICLE 5 – NON-DISCRIMINATION ...................................................................... 5 ARTICLE 6 – MANAGEMENT RIGHTS .................................................................... 6 ARTICLE 7 – GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE ................................................................ 6 ARTICLE 8 – JOB VACANCIES ............................................................................... 9 ARTICLE 9 – WORK PERFORMED IN HIGHER CLASSIFICATION ..................... 11 ARTICLE 10 – DISCIPLINE AND TERMINATION .................................................. 12 ARTICLE 11 – PAY PERIOD ................................................................................... 16 ARTICLE 12 – PAYROLL DEDUCTION AND AUTOMATIC PAYROLL DEPOSIT ......................................................................................... 16 ARTICLE 13
  • The Case Against the So-Called Right to Work Act, 15 La

    The Case Against the So-Called Right to Work Act, 15 La

    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Louisiana State University: DigitalCommons @ LSU Law Center Louisiana Law Review Volume 15 | Number 1 Survey of 1954 Louisiana Legislation December 1954 The aC se Against the So-Called Right to Work Act William J. Dodd Repository Citation William J. Dodd, The Case Against the So-Called Right to Work Act, 15 La. L. Rev. (1954) Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/lalrev/vol15/iss1/18 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Reviews and Journals at LSU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Louisiana Law Review by an authorized editor of LSU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Case Against the So-Called Right to Work Act William J. Dodd* Act 252 of 1954, referred to as "Louisiana's Right to Work Law," was without question the most controversial legislative problem considered during the 1954 legislative session. The act is class legislation and may well result in a disruption of the otherwise harmonious labor relations that have existed in Lou- isiana up to the present time. Without attempting to go into the reasons why the sponsors and backers of this legislation promoted its passage, let us look at the harm the enforcement of this act can bring to labor relations in Louisiana. Briefly, the following indictments can be brought against this so-called "Right to Work" act:' It will disrupt the harmonious relations presently existing between labor and management and unreasonably restrict em- ployees in the exercise of freedom of speech and communication by forbidding picketing or other lawful means of communi- cating the facts regarding labor disputes.